THE TOTAL PACKAGE
Re: James Bowman’s Air
Force Academics:
Two points to make in reference to Mr. Bowman’s article: The
charter of the military academies in this country spelled out the
goal of furnishing combat officers for our armed services. That was
changed and, in my opinion, corrupted when women were admitted in
1976.
Sorry, but “omerta” doesn’t cut it. The honor code at the U.S.
Military Academy is: A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal, nor
tolerate anyone who does. There is no honor is remaining silent in
the face of lawlessness. (I would argue that Cadet MacArthur’s
silence was not to protect law-breaking, as hazing was an integral
part of academy life well into the 1970s, but that’s a topic
written about exhaustively.)
Duty, Honor, Country,
— Lee D. Lowrey
USMA 1975
Women are indeed allowed in front line warplanes. I personally have
flown real world missions, Northern and Southern Watch, where women
were occupying fighter aircraft in my package.
Cheers,
— Jeff Wilson
Lt. Col. (Retired)
Jim Bowman is wrong when he asserts the fairer sex is restricted
from flying warbirds in combat. This restriction was lifted by
Hillary and Co. in the early nineties. Gals are still
restricted from flying whirlybirds in direct support of the ground
combat. This too is being challenged by the feminazis.
— Wardo
Colorado Springs, CO
DEAD RINGER
Re: Adam D. Thierer’s Schumer’s
Cell Phone Silliness:
Well, Duh. Of course there is no mention of cell phones in the
Constitution. Must I explain why to the VRW?
— unsigned
NEWS PRINCES
Re: Enemy Central’s When
It Raines and Fools
of the Trade:
I read this week’s Enemy of the Week. It referenced last week’s
EOW, which I promptly found archived and went on to read (sorry!).
That reference was to ABC, Terry Moran, and Sir Peter Jennings, of
“World News” fame. Our community, Portland, Oregon, was graced by a
full day of Sir Peter, as in 24+ hours’ worth! He was gracious to
co-chair our local town hall live TV show on the ABC affiliate as
well as anchor his “World News Tonight” from our beautiful
area.
Mr. Jennings was glad to explain his role in the news media as
well as his desired outcome in that role. He sounded decidedly
French when speaking of the media’s role and his role as
the editor-in-chief of ABC’s “World News Tonight.” He went on to
say that their (his) job was to act as a counter-balance to the
stated U.S. policy (read: President Bush’s), and to provide another
view. Not one time did he mention the primary role of news shows,
the one remembered in the past, in reporting the news. The
“editing” came in deciding subjects of “national importance,” or
which live events to cover, or what general topics would be of
interest to viewers. Now we have the pleasure of hearing vaunted
opinions of such luminaries as Sir Peter, or the ever valiant
Prince Terry. Any question as to their opinions and slanting is
cast aside by reviewing the question asked by his royalness, the
Crown Prince, referenced in the EOW of March 7th.
Forgive my sarcasm, but these folks from ABC, or Disney for that
matter, are somewhat less qualified to decide the “role of
journalists” than the schools that teach the true history and
practices of the subject. There is also, thankfully, a follow-up
business correlation from these kinds of obvious public-steering
decisions; namely to help ABC rest secure in 3rd place amongst the
“Big 3” and being regularly challenged by the newer upstart
networks who show routine ratings advances against them. Some say
that is surely or purely from lame programs. I feel there is a
larger and broader cynicism towards ABC’s blatant “steering” and
far left leanings in the views supposedly shown as balanced. Fear
not, guys and gals at ABC. The outcome of lower and lower
rankings/ratings is All But Certain as long as these abhorrent
changes in journalistic practices are employed and supported. We,
the viewers, understand.
— Dave Grasser
THE NEW CENSORSHIP
Re: Michael Craig’s What’s
the Big Idea?:
It surely is time to put Michael Craig out to pasture. On
matters narrowly concerned with the stock market he has some
interesting ideas; not all of them correct, certainly, but many of
them worthy of consideration.
When he goes beyond that area, however, and speaks of matters
such as the overall value of lawyers to American economy and
society, or when he comments on the policies of Dubya, he seems so
far out in left field that the peanut vendors won’t even deal with
him. His latest effort gives the impression that Bush is running
foreign policy as an aid to Wall Street. He is not. And if Wall
Street is unable to properly interpret what seem to most of us as a
set of straightforward policies then it is the investors who are at
fault not G.W. Bush.
There are plenty of more insightful writers on the web today.
Pick up one of them and send Craig back to the reservation. As for
me, I have wasted my last bit of time reading his screeds.
— Richard Donley
